Of Interest

This is a photo of the first generation students in the class of 2021, taken this fall by departing Dean Rosanna Ferro.

What is the racial breakdown of first generation students? The biggest problem that the college faces in admissions is getting “enough” qualified African-American and Hispanic students. (The term “NAM” is sometimes used for brevity. It is an abbreviation for Non-Asian Minority.) Broadly speaking there are two ways to handle that problem. First, take the very best NAM students you can find, using Academic Rating, the same scheme used for white/Asian students. Second, worry less about Academic Rating and more about checking more than one box at a time. This approach would put an emphasis on NAMs that were also first generation or alumni or athletes since admitting them also allows the College to fulfill its other goals.

I don’t have a good sense of which approach, if either, the College prefers. But this picture does not appear to be as white or Asian as the rest of Williams . . .

The current trend is to be “inclusive” and “diverse” by pointing out this kind of “disparity.”

To single students based on their parents past is ludicrous.

Q. What difference does it make if you are the “first generation” to go to college.” Why is this a “group?”

A. It makes no difference at all. Everyone earns their way into Williams in a unique way.

Why not have a group “students of non-millionaires?”

“Students of parents who work blue collar jobs.”

“Poor kids who go to Williams.”

It shows an elitism that exists in the academy as well. The thought that “you have not had opportunity (read “been somebody”) until you have gone to (insert elitist college name here). This kind of branding and grouping is condescending. It’s stereotyping.

Q. What difference does it make if you are the “first generation” to go to college.” Why is this a “group?”

A. It makes no difference at all. Everyone earns their way into Williams in a unique way.

Why not have a group “students of non-millionaires?”

“Students of parents who work blue collar jobs.”

“Poor kids who go to Williams.”

It shows an elitism that exists in the academy as well. The thought that “you have not had opportunity (read “been somebody”) until you have gone to (insert elitist college name here). This kind of branding and grouping is condescending. It’s stereotyping.

From PTC (above)

Yes, PTC.

Here is what makes this photo very disturbing to me:

1. It is of a group defined by demographic statistics, not interests as might be expected on an intellectually rich campus with physically rich facilities for expression. These students did not self select this grouping.

2. While the students themselves did not select and determine this group, the institution did.

It makes a difference because first generation students have, on average, a different experience going to college. Their parents can’t provide prior knowledge of college and all sorts of things can trip up a student whose parents didn’t have a college background. We know first generation students are, again on average, less likely to graduate than their peers and interventions help them graduate.

jesus christ. this blog is the worst. the absolute worst.

Also, no sh*t the first gen population is less white and less asian than williams. There’s this thing called history.

NAM? Seriously? GTFOH. That’s not a term used in common discourse. But a quick google search comes up with a bunch of alt-right and white nationalist blogs that use the model minority myth to try to divide people of color. It took more words in this post to explain NAM than to just write “black and Latino” every time.

Much like my parents cannot help me with some aspects of living in a city because they’ve never done that, the same is true of parents of first generation students and going to college.

But yes, on average, parents who did not go to college are disadvantaged economically. That’s the only disadvantage. They’re not worse, they just are less likely to have money. They are less likely to be able to help (on average) a student navigate college issues (like financial aid or picking courses or arguing a grade or whatever) as effectively as parents with a college degree because they don’t have that experience. Honestly, how did I need to write that?

There’s a wealth of literature (the best is written by first generation academics) on how college has a particular (wealthy) cultural milieu to it (do I have to explain why?) and that feeling outside of that can affect a student’s success at college. Parents, having never experienced that, sometimes cannot help with that. Those students are also more likely to come from communities with lower rates of college enrollment and can feel isolated from their hometown peers while at college. Colleges can and should act to help students feel welcome and also change their culture so that doesn’t require as much intervention. It’s just basic decency by a college.

I am sure that there is a correlation, and that some of it is economics.

But I am not sure this kind of grouping is productive. I think the college should provide help for students if they ask for it.

I understand that today students have much less autonomy than they used to. The school is strict. Has a lot of rules- that are much more enforced than they used to be.

That is something that prep school (boarding school) students are probably better prepared to deal with. I bet there is a correlation and causation between who thrives at Williams and who went to a boarding school- because Williams is very similar to an elite prep school now.

In fact, the “if they ask for it” approach is one of the worst because there’s a long literature on which students ask for help–it’s generally high status students as early as elementary school (and that continues). See work by Jess Colarco. It’s stigmatizing to have to ask for help for things other students see as normal when those other students only see it as normal because of dumb luck (they were born to wealthier/college-educated parents).

Williams has always been like an elite prep school. Elite prep schools were designed to PREP students for elite colleges by being similar to them. This is an effort to remedy the inequality that creates.

Of course prep schools are there to prepare students for college. Socially what you are saying is also true to extent- however,

My point is that the rules of prep school now closely resemble the rules at Williams- which is not the case in the past. The administration is much more involved in what students do in there time away from class than it used to be.

Williams dorm life used to be completely free and run by students. Now it is heavily monitored with a lot of rules- much like prep school dorms.

This pretty much sums it up. Williams is intimately involved in what students do away from class now. A lot rules. A lot of ways to get into trouble- get suspended or expelled.

… At the beginning of the fall 2015 semester, the College rolled out updated Responsible Party Standards that made it easier for students to hold small and safe events at the same time discouraging students from holding parties that involved high-risk behavior (such as the presence of hard alcohol, large numbers of students in one common space, large amounts of alcohol per student, unregistered parties).

With this in mind, here are some key points to remember when it comes to safe and responsible alcohol consumption at social events:

Hard alcohol and common source alcohol (kegs, punch, etc.) are prohibited
Providing alcohol to anyone under 21 is prohibited (and illegal)
Parties of more than 20 people must be registered
Party hosts must adhere to safe room capacity and safe drinking standards (no more than 120 servings of beer or wine permitted, or up to twice the room capacity, whichever is less)
Visit http://student-life.williams.edu/events/student-event-planning/basic-events/ for more details.

Campus Safety and Security provides a key role in maintaining a safe environment. Officers conduct checks for registered parties and will help hosts keep the party safe and in compliance. Unless the registered party becomes unsafe, CSS will work with the host to keep the party open.

Officers also conduct “hotspot” checks in areas that have exhibited patterns of unsafe/irresponsible behaviors. If CSS comes across an unregistered party or a situation involving violations of the responsible party standards (even if it’s registered)…

It probably does not fit with Godwin’s Law of length and inevitability.

My reference was not to Hitler in particular but to the meticulous use of demographics and the development of logos for specific groups based on these demos. The detailed chart is a great example of thoroughness in definition and application. As are the illustrative photos.

While the positive social uses of identification and resultant programs toward demo groups are not a problem for me, this particular photo of the dean taking the picture of a group of healthy, intelligent Williams students sitting on the Chapin steps, struck a strong propaganda tone too strong in me to prevent comment.